Zevachim Daf 110 זבחים דַף 110

The next Mishnah states that a מנחה on which קמיצה was not done, and one offered it בחוץ, he is פטור, since it is not yet fit for offering inside the Mikdash. If קמיצה was performed, וחזר קומצה לתוכה – and its kometz went back into [the minchah] and one offered it בחוץ, he is חייב, since such a הקטרה would be valid in the Mikdash (albeit forbidden). The Gemara asks: ואמאי – But why is he liable for offering the קומץ which was mixed into its minchah? ליבטלי שירים לקומץ – Let the remainder of the minchah nullify the kometz, and invalidate the הקטרה!? Rebbe Zeira answered that a gezeirah shavah (הקטרה הקטרה) between the קומץ and שירים teaches: מה הקטרת קומץ אין קומץ מבטל חבירו – just as regarding burning the kometz, one kometz does not nullify another (i.e., if one kometz became mixed with another, the larger one does not nullify the smaller one), אף הקטרת שירים אין שירים מבטלין קומץ – so too regarding burning the שירים of the minchah, the שירים do not nullify the kometz.

The next Mishnah states that if one offered either the קומץ or the לבונה of a minchah בחוץ, he is חייב, but Rebbe Eliezer says he is only חייב if he offers both, because burning both is necessary to permit the שירים. If he offered one inside and the other בחוץ, all agree he is חייב (since this second element completes the offering). Rebbe Yitzchak Nafcha asked: קומץ מהו שיתיר כנגדו בשירים – does the kometz permit part of the remainder parallel to itself? מישרא שרי או קלוש מיקלש – Does burning the קומץ permit half the שירים, or does it merely weaken the prohibition of the entire שירים? The Gemara clarifies that according to Rebbe Meir, who holds מפגלין בחצי מתיר – one can effect piggul even with intent about half the permitter, it is clear that each element of a מתיר permits half. According to the Rabbonon who disagree with him, why would we assume that it either permits half or weakens its prohibition? Perhaps it does neither!? The Gemara explains that the question was asked according the Rabbonon of our Mishnah, who say burning the קומץ is a valid הקטרה which obligates בחוץ. The Gemara concludes: תיקו.

The next Mishnah states that one who is זורק some of a korban’s blood (even one which requires multiple זריקות) is חייב, and Rava explains that even Rebbe Eliezer agrees with this ruling. Rebbe Elazar says: אף המנסך מי החג בחג בחוץ חייב – even one who pours waters of Succos on Succos outside the Mikdash is liable. Rebbe מנחם יודפאה says that Rebbe Elazar follows the opinion of his teacher, Rebbe Akiva, who holds ניסוך המים דאורייתא – the pouring of water on Succos is a Biblical obligation. Rebbe Akiva darshened "ונסכיה" – and its libations, the plural implying בשני ניסוכים הכתוב מדבר – the passuk discusses two libations, the ניסוך המים of Succos, and the standard ניסוך היין brought with every תמיד. Reish Lakish asked Rebbe Yochanan that if ניסוך המים is derived from a passuk about ניסום היין, it should require three לוגין like ניסוך היין does, yet Rebbe Elazar implies that any pouring בחוץ, even less than three לוגין, is חייב!? Furthermore, ניסוך המים should be required daily, like ניסוך היין!? Therefore, Reish Lakish said that Rebbe מנחם יודפאה overlooked Rebbe Assi’s statement, that ניסוך המים (among other things) is a הלכה למשה מסיני.